Red alert! Only 2 days left.

With your help, we can continue to sound the alarm about the breaking threats to life and family here in the U.S. and around the world - just like we did when we supported the Benham Brothers this past year.

In the past 3 months alone, 15 million people have accessed our site in search of the truth!

Today, with David and Jason Benham, we are asking you to stand up for the truth with a generous donation towards our Spring Campaign!

AUSTRALIA, February 25, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A famed Australian TV personality known for her beauty and bright personality was found dead Friday, hanging in her apartment. While international mainstream media blames Charlotte Dawson’s death on her depression caused by social media bullying, the woman admits in her autobiography that it was in fact her abortion 15 years ago that introduced her to what she called the “depression bogeyman.”

“When I got home [from the abortion], I felt that something had changed. I felt a shift. Maybe it was hormonal, but I felt the early tinges of what I can now identify as my first experience with depression,” wrote Dawson in her 2012 autobiography Air Kiss & Tell.

Australians were shocked to learn of Dawson’s suicide. Only hours before her body was discovered by a real estate agent, Dawson had appeared on a show looking calm, composed, and on top of the world. No foul play is suspected.

Dawson’s is a story of tragic loss, betrayal, and depression. She married Olympic swimmer Scott Miller in 1999, one year before the Summer Olympics in Sydney. The newlyweds were considered to be one of the most glamorous celebrity couples in Sydney at that time.

Dawson soon became pregnant with her first, and as it turns out, only child.

“I knew I was pregnant; I didn’t have to have the test, I could just feel it. It was the most brilliant but terrifying feeling and the test did, as expected, confirm it,” she wrote in her autobiography. “We were going to have a baby. I was actually going to be a mother. If there had been room to have butterflies in my stomach, I figure I could have managed that as well, such was my ability to multi-task.”

But Dawson’s husband Miller was not supportive of the pregnancy because the upcoming Summer Olympics would conflict with the due date.

“I could sense some hesitation in Scott. My due date would clash with the 2000 Olympic Games and this was very concerning. Everything Scott had done was leading up to this moment and nothing could stand in his way, so it was decided that we would terminate the child and try again later.”

“Who needed a developing foetus when a gold medal was on offer, eh?” Dawson wrote.

But Dawson could not reconcile the decision to abort with her inner self. She knew that somehow she was not being true to herself as a woman and mother who was carrying a new life within.

“Inside I was in total turmoil. I wanted the baby. How long would we have to wait? Were there even any guarantees that I would fall pregnant again? Of course, I accepted without question that the Olympics was Scott’s number-one priority — I had been told that by him and a number of other interested and invested parties.”

Things went from bad to worse for Dawson when her husband refused to stay with her in the abortion clinic.

“Scott accompanied me to a local clinic, but he couldn’t cope with the atmosphere so he left me there alone. I was struggling with the decision and trying not to appear emotional or distressed about it so that Scott could maintain his focus. I was trying to train myself to think of my baby as an inconvenience, like a sneeze in a news broadcast. It was difficult.”

In the abortion clinic, Dawson began to experience a difficult mix of emotions.

“I then had to reconcile myself to the personal responsibility of having a termination. Should I be feeling guilt and shame? I was challenging my idea that motherhood was an uncomplicated and blissful time, especially for newlyweds,” she wrote.

“I considered the possibility that I might end up being a childless woman, which was a frustrating and demoralizing prospect for me, as I very much wanted to be a mother. What if I couldn’t have another child? What if I’d blown my only chance of motherhood by sacrificing this one?”

Abortion for Dawson was not the liberating self-fulfilling experience that abortion advocates said it would be. Having lost her baby to abortion, she tried to focus on what she still had.

“It was a horrible, sad time for me, but I had to keep reminding myself of what I had. I had a husband, and we were building a life and a home together.”

“I wanted our baby, but I felt greedy, like I already had too much, that the termination was a compromise I should make,” she wrote.

“As brave as I was trying to be, and as much as I tried to reassure myself that we were doing the right thing, it was still a gut-wrenching time.”

It was not until Dawson returned home from the abortion clinic that the gravity of what she had just done came crashing down on her.

“When I got home, I felt that something had changed. I felt a shift. Maybe it was hormonal, but I felt the early tinges of what I can now identify as my first experience with depression.”

“I should have bought a couch especially for the depression bogeyman right then and there. If I had known he was going to visit so often, I would have at least have had somewhere for him to sit, the bastard,” she wrote.

Dawson’s sacrifice of her only child for the sake of her husband’s Olympic career did not pay off. Sex tapes emerged around this time of Miller being filmed committing adultery with a female swimmer. He was also caught on tape doping to enhance his performance.

He did not even make the team for the Sydney Olympics.

The news of her husband’s betrayal added even more devastation to the already shattered Dawson.

“If I’d started to feel pangs of depression after the termination, the shock of receiving this news barely six months into my marriage was too much to bear. Something inside me completely broke that Sunday, something that is beyond repair, something that has never come back,” she wrote.

“I was a broken mess. I had to pretend that nothing was wrong at work and at social functions while people were whispering behind my back…”

“It was around this time that I learned the gentle art of drowning sorrow with bucket loads of wine.”

Advocate for life Jill Stanek called Dawson’s story a “tragedy.”

“And abortion proponents share the blame. They, of course, push for easy access to abortion, deemphasizing its after-affects to the point they absolutely refuse to acknowledge post-abortion depression, which further incapacitates those actually living through it,” she wrote on her blog.

“I think what’s so glaring here is that supposedly a woman’s ‘right to choose’ is the highest tenet of feminism. You see in Dawson’s story how abortion — particularly in this situation — led her to deny her heart, what was best for her emotionally. She did not have a voice in the decision.”

“Abortion put her in a position where she sacrificed what was best for her as a woman and mother to her husband’s career,” he said.

Burke, who has worked in the post-abortion healing ministry for 15 years, said a story like Dawson’s is very common for women who choose abortion. “They feel a tremendous amount of pressure if their pregnancy is not accepted by the husband. They fear the resentment.”

Burke believes that if just one person had reached out to Dawson and affirmed and supported her in her desire to keep her child, things may have ended differently.

“Look at the possibilities for her life and how things would have been different [had she received support for her pregnancy]. She would have had a child. She would not have had the depression. It very well could have challenged [Charlotte and Scott] to grow as a couple.”

“Abortion just attacks all those things,” he said.

Burke said a link does indeed exist between abortion and depression, a link that has been verified by numerous scientific studies.

A 2012 study of post-abortive women in China titled The Impact of Prior Abortion on Anxiety and Depression Symptoms During a Subsequent Pregnancy: Data From a Population-Based Cohort Study in Chinafound a high correlation between induced abortion and depression among pregnant women.

A 2008 study by the University of Oslo in Norway titled Abortion and depression: A population-based longitudinal study of young womenfound that young adult women who have had abortions are more likely to become depressed.

A 2003 study published in the Medical Science Monitor titled Depression associated with abortion and childbirth: a long-term analysis of the NLSY cohortfound that women with a history of abortion are at a significantly higher risk of experiencing clinical depression compared to women who give birth.

Burke suggested that abortion causes trauma in women because deep down inside, the woman knows that she is ending the life of another person, a person who is her very own child.

“At the heart of [a woman’s] post-abortion pain is [the knowledge] that she participated in the death of her child. She grieves the loss of that child. A mother’s heart is deeply wounded by her role in the death of her child,” he said.

Burke said that many woman deal with the loss and grief by “acting out,” whether it be through drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, all of which he said are futile attempts to deaden the pain. He pointed to Dawson’s alcohol abuse with wine as a “very common abortion-coping mechanism.”

“The way you come out of that is not to deny that pain, but to find a space where you can repent and grieve that loss.”

Rachel’s Vineyard, which Burke helped to launch with his wife Theresa, is a groundbreaking organization offering just such a “space” where women go on a weekend retreat to find healing from their abortion.

“The program is an opportunity to examine your abortion experience, identify the ways that the loss has impacted you in the past and present, and helps to acknowledge any unresolved feelings that many individuals struggle with after abortion,” states the organization’s website.

Burke said that Charlotte Dawson’s story does not need to be repeated. The one word that comes to his mind to describe her abandonment is “criminal.”

“It’s criminal that women are not given sufficient information, when they’re making these decisions, to understand the full consequences of their ‘choice,’” he said.

“It’s criminal that mainstream media wants to frame this as a ‘cyber-bullying’ episode — and that’s an element of her case — but the core issue is her abortion loss. It’s criminal because if it was any other issue, such as sexual abuse, her sexual identity she may have been struggling with, if it was an issue of abuse by her husband, you could be assured that there would be conversations about this across mainstream media that would focus on this causative effect and educate people on the matter.”

“But when it comes to abortion, ‘abortion rights’ is more important than the health of women and even the lives of women. Mainstream media is carrying on a dirty war for the abortion industry. They’re covering up for pro-abortion forces and that’s criminal.”

While mainstream media may be willing to overlook the abortion-depression connection, Dawson herself did not mince words about how her ‘choice’ devastated her.

“I was just a depressed mess,” she wrote. “I was single, damaged and miserable.”

Red alert! Only 2 days left.

Support pro-life news. Help us reach our critical spring fundraising goal by April 1!

Disney ABC embraces X-rated anti-Christian bigot Dan Savage in new prime time show

March 30, 2015 (NewsBusters.org) -- Media Research Center (MRC) and Family Research Council (FRC) are launching a joint national campaign to educate the public about a Disney ABC sitcom pilot based on the life of bigoted activist Dan Savage. MRC and FRC contacted Ben Sherwood, president of Disney/ABC Television Group, more than two weeks ago urging him to put a stop to this atrocity but received no response. [Read the full letter]

A perusal of Dan Savage’s work reveals a career built on advocating violence — even murder — and spewing hatred against people of faith. Savage has spared no one with whom he disagrees from his vitriolic hate speech. Despite his extremism, vulgarity, and unabashed encouragement of dangerous sexual practices, Disney ABC is moving forward with this show, disgustingly titled “Family of the Year.”

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacts:

“Disney ABC’s decision to effectively advance Dan Savage’s calls for violence against conservatives and his extremist attacks against people of faith, particularly evangelicals and Catholics, is appalling and outrageous. If hate speech were a crime, this man would be charged with a felony. Disney ABC giving Dan Savage a platform for his anti-religious bigotry is mind-boggling and their silence is deafening.

“By creating a pilot based on the life of this hatemonger and bringing him on as a producer, Disney ABC is sending a signal that they endorse Dan Savage’s wish that a man be murdered. He has stated, ‘Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.’ ABC knows this. We told them explicitly.

“If the production of ‘Family of the Year’ is allowed to continue, not just Christians but all people of goodwill can only surmise that the company Walt Disney created is endorsing violence.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins reacts:

“Does ABC really want to produce a pilot show based on a vile bully like Dan Savage? Do Dan Savage’s over-the top-obscenity, intimidation of teenagers and even violent rhetoric reflect the values of Disney? Partnering with Dan Savage and endorsing his x-rated message will be abandoning the wholesome values that have attracted millions of families to Walt Disney.”

Dan Savage has made numerous comments about conservatives, evangelicals, and Catholics that offend basic standards of decency. They include:

Proclaiming that he sometimes thinks about “f****ing the shit out of” Senator Rick Santorum

Calling for Christians at a high school conference to “ignore the bull**** in the Bible”

Saying that “the only thing that stands between my d*** and Brad Pitt’s mouth is a piece of paper” when expressing his feelings on Pope Benedict’s opposition to gay marriage

Promoting marital infidelity

Saying “Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.”

Telling Bill Maher that he wished Republicans “were all f***ing dead”

Telling Dr. Ben Carson to “suck my d***. Name the time and place and I’ll bring my d*** and a camera crew and you can s*** me off and win the argument.”

Many would be surprised to learn that Texas law allows physicians to forcibly remove a feeding tube against the will of the patient and their family. In fact, there is a greater legal penalty for failing to feed or water an animal than for a hospital to deny a human being food and water through a tube.

This is because there is no penalty whatsoever for a healthcare provider who wishes to deny artificially-administered nutrition and hydration (AANH). According to Texas Health and Safety Code, “every living dumb creature” is legally entitled access to suitable food and water.

Denying an animal food and water, like in this January case in San Antonio, is punishable by civil fines up to $10,000 and criminal penalties up to two years in jail per offense. Yet Texas law allows health care providers to forcibly deny food and water from human beings – what they would not be able to legally do to their housecat. And healthcare providers are immune from civil and criminal penalties for denial of food and water to human beings as long as they follow the current statutory process which is sorely lacking in safeguards.

Therefore, while it is surprising that Texas has the only state law that explicitly mentions food and water delivered artificially for the purpose of completely permitting its forced denial (the other six states mention AANH explicitly for the opposite purpose, to limit or prohibit its refusal), it is not at all surprising that the issue of protecting a patient’s right to food and water is perhaps the one point of consensus across all major stakeholders.

H.B. 3074 is the first TADA reform bill to include only this provision that is agreed upon across all major players in previous legislative sessions.

There are irreconcilable ideological differences between two major right-to-life organizations that should supposedly be like-minded: Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life. Each faction (along with their respective allies) have previously sponsored broad and ambitious bills to either preserve but reform the current law (Texas Alliance for Life’s position) or overturn it altogether as Texas Right to Life aims to do.

Prior to H.B. 3074, bills filed by major advocacy organizations have often included AANH, but also a host of other provisions that were so contentious and unacceptable to other organizations that each bill ultimately died, and this mutually-agreed-upon and vital reform always died along with it.

2011 & 2013 Legislative Sessions present prime example

This 2011 media report shows the clear consensus on need for legislation to simply address the need to protect patients’ rights to food and water:

“Hughes [bill sponsor for Texas Right to Life] has widespread support for one of his bill’s goals: making food and water a necessary part of treatment and not something that can be discontinued, unless providing it would harm the patient.”

Nonetheless, in 2013, both organizations and their allies filed complicated, contentious opposing bills, both of which would have protected a patient’s right to food and water but each bill also included provisions the rival group saw as contrary to their goals. Both bills were ultimately defeated and neither group was able to achieve protections for patients at risk of forced starvation and dehydration – a mutual goal that could have been met through a third, narrow bill like H.B. 3074.

H.B. 3074 finally focuses on what unites the organizations involved rather than what divides them, since these differences have resulted in a 12 year standoff with no progress whatsoever.

H.B. 3074 is progress that is pre-negotiated and pre-approved.

It is not a fertile springboard for negotiations on an area of mutual agreement. Rather it is the culmination of years of previous negotiations on bills that all came too late, either due to the complexnature of rival bills, the controversy involved, or even both.

On the contrary, H.B. 3074 is not just simply an area of agreement; moreover, it is has already been negotiated. It should not be stymied by disagreements on language, since Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life (along with their allies) were able to agree on language in 2007 with C.S.S.B. 439. C.S.S.B. 439 reads that, unlike the status quo that places no legal conditions on when food and water may be withdrawn, it would be permitted for those in a terminal condition if,

“reasonable medical evidence indicates the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration may hasten the patient’s death or seriously exacerbate other major medical problems and the risk of serious medical pain or discomfort that cannot be alleviated based on reasonable medical judgment outweighs the benefit of continued artificial nutrition and hydration.”

This language is strikingly similar to H.B. 3074 which states, “except that artificially administered nutrition and hydration must be provided unless, based on reasonable medical judgment, providingartificially administered nutrition and hydration would:

Hasten the patient’s death;

Seriously exacerbate other major medical problems not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of the treatment;

Result in substantial irremediable physical pain, suffering, or discomfort not outweighed by the benefit of the provision of the treatment;

Be medically ineffective; or

Be contrary to the patient’s clearly stated desire not to receive artificially administered nutrition or hydration.”

Texas Right to Life would support the language in H.B. 3074 that already has Texas Alliance for Life’s endorsement. Any reconciliation on the minor differences in language would therefore be minimal and could be made by either side, but ultimately, both sides and their allies would gain a huge victory – the first victory in 12 years on this vital issue.

It seems that the Texas Advance Directive Act, even among its sympathizers, has something for everyone to oppose.

The passage of H.B. 3074 and the legal restoration of rights to feeding tubes for Texas patients will not begin to satisfy critics of the Texas Advance Directives Act who desire much greater changes to the law and will assuredly continue to pursue them. H.B. 3074 in no way marks the end for healthcare reform, but perhaps a shift from the belief that anything short of sweeping changes is an endorsement of the status quo.

Rather, we can look at H.B. 3074 as breaking a barrier and indicating larger changes are possible.

And if nothing else, by passing H.B. 3074 introduced by State Rep. Drew Springer, we afford human beings in Texas the same legal access to food and water that we give to our horses. What is cruel to do to an animal remains legal to do to humans in Texas if organizations continue to insist on the whole of their agenda rather than agreeing to smaller bills like H.B. 3074.

The question is, can twelve years of bad blood and bickering be set aside for even this most noble of causes?

Only 3 Days Left!

I can’t believe how quickly our annual Spring campaign has flown by. Now,with only 3 days remaining, we still have $96,000 left to raise to meet our absolute minimum goal.

That’s why I must challenge you to stop everything, right now, and make a donation of whatever amount you can afford to support the pro-life and pro-family investigative reporting of LifeSite!

I simply cannot overemphasize how important your donation, no matter how large or small, is to the continued existence of LifeSite.

For 17 years, we have relied almost exclusively on the donations of our growing army of everyday readers like you: readers who are tired of the anti-life and anti-family bias of the mainstream media, and who are looking for a different kind of news agency.

We at LifeSite have always striven to be that news agency, and your ever-faithful support has encouraged us to forge ahead fearlessly in this mission to promote the Culture of Life through investigative news reporting.

You will find our donation page is incredibly simple and easy to use. Making your donation will take less than two minutes, and then you can get back to the pressing duties scheduled for your day. But those two minutes means the world to us!

If you have not had the opportunity to see the video message from the Benham Brothers to all of our readers, I encourage you to do so (click here to view).

The Benham Brothers are only one of many, many pro-life and family leaders, media personalities, politicians, and activists around the world who rely on LifeSite on a daily basis!

Since our humble beginnings in the late 90s, LifeSite has gone from a small non-profit to an international force in the battle for life and family, read by over 5 million people every month.

This is thanks only to the leaders, activists, and ordinary readers just like you who have recognized the importance truth plays in turning the tides of the Culture.

I want to thank the many readers who helped bring us within striking distance of our minimum goal with their donations over the weekend.

But though we have made great strides in the past few days, we still need many more donations if we are going to have any hope of making it all the way by April 1st.

In these final, anxious days of our quarterly campaigns, I am always tempted to give in to fear, imagining what will happen if we don’t reach our goal.

In these moments, however, I instead turn to prayer, remembering that God in his providence has never yet let us down. With His help we have always been given precisely what we need to carry on!